Skin Bleaching, Racism,Miscegenation, and Transracials

The White supremacists teach that the darker you are, the more forbidden you are, the more trash you are supposed to be, the more you are supposed to be treated like trash. And they teach that not only to other White people, but they teach it to the Nonwhite people themselves and they say if there’s anybody even in your family that has darker skin than you, then that person is to be treated in a more derogatory fashion, and its a subliminal thing most of the time. And the closer you are to being White the better you are supposed to be treated. Now you have an ocean of nonwhites who cant stand themselves. Using insults other people use on them for their own people.

How did it start

When powerful patriarchs learned to harness beauty’s power. Suddenly beauty was in the eye of the beholder, and the beholders were white. As colonialists, the definition of beauty became their prerogative, as it would any conqueror. Consequently, a new racially defined theory of beauty began to evolve, with a singular European template.

In ancient Greece the profiles of Apollo and Venus were promoted as examples of the ideal human face. Later, German Renaissance painter Albrecht Dürer devised a proportional system that positioned Europeans as paradigms of physical perfection, and which was subsequently to govern the aesthetics of Western fine art for centuries. In 1799, in The Regular Gradation of Man, English surgeon Charles White declared the superiority of white beauty when he stated that, ‘Ascending the line of gradation, we come at last to the white European, who being the most removed from the brute creation, may, on that account, be considered as the most beautiful of the human race.’ Simultaneously, whiteness was promoted as the colour of all things virtuous, clean and beautiful. White skin, in combination with red cheeks, was regarded as beauty’s most desirable hue by the Elizabethans. The Queen herself, with the aid of make-up, had cheeks that were likened to ‘roses in a bed of lilies,’ by poet and painter Edmund Spenser.

White beauty ruled. It was written, and it was practised.

WHEN AFRICANS BEGAN arriving as slaves in Europe and the Americas in the mid-fifteenth century, they did not fit the prevailing beauty standard. Indeed, black beauty appeared to be the exact opposite of white. They had broader noses, fuller lips, tightly curled black hair and dark skin. These aesthetic variations became one of the primary catalysts for the theory of racial inferiority put forward by Europeans as a justification for the slave status of Africans. Using a combination of pseudo-science, religious folklore and pure invention, they fashioned the notion that Africans belonged to a separate, sub-human anthropology. This notion of ‘difference’ was not simply a product of their appearance, but was also tied to the fact that when Europeans discovered Africa they found that its inhabitants spoke no English, wore little or no clothing and practised their own religious and sexual customs, all of which seemed alien to the Christian way of life.

Unlike the Europeans of the slave era, in ancient Greece and Rome there was little stigma attached to black beauty, and they devised no racially based theories of inferiority. African goddess figures such as Minerva, Artemis, Diana of Attica and Isis were worshipped within ancient Greek mythology. Artists favoured Africans as models, and representations of black beauty feature extensively in all forms of artwork, from coins to statues. In 270 BC the poet Asclepiades scribed a verse in praise of black women. ‘With her charms, Didymee has ravished my heart. Alas, I melt as wax at the sight of her beauty. She is black, it is true, but what matters? Coals are also black; but when they are alight they glow like rose cups.’

African queens of antiquity such as Andromeda, Hatshepsut, Nefertiti and the Queen of Sheba have carried the iconography of black beauty through the ages, while historical representations of the black Madonna and child feature extensively in the religious art of Spain, France, Poland and Russia, covering a range of shades from light brown to deep black, mirroring the actual skin-tone spectrum present within black beauty.

Film and ad companies are cashing on the dark skin complex that already exists all across the country,” says actor Nandita Das, who has taken a stance against this craze for fairness. She supports the “Dark is Beautiful” campaign, which was launched in 2009 and challenges the notion that success and beauty are dependent upon skin color. Das, a rarity in India’s commercial film industry, Bollywood, where most heroines boast of pale complexions, consistently refuses to lighten her skin with makeup during her shoots.

For a period, ads portraying dark people in a negative light took over Indian television screens, repeatedly telling Indians the way to sustain success in life and career was dependent not on their talent, but on their skin color. Although such ads have been stemmed now, the aggressive marketing campaigns, have already dug in deep into the Indian psyche.

In 2010, a year into the “Dark is Beautiful” campaign, Vaseline, another Unilever brand that markets fairness products, released a survey that revealed “fair, glowing, and spotless skin” was the topmost desire of the Indian woman. Eight out of 10 women polled by the company believed having fair skin provided them with a head-start in Indian society.

The years from 2009 until now saw a voracious anti-fairness campaign by civil society groups that led advertising watchdog, the Advertising Standards Council of India, to rein in fairness advertising that used negative social stereotyping on the basis of skin color. But while that changed the nature of fairness ads, the demand for fairness products continues growing among consumers.

“We bring up girls to believe how they look is more important than who they are,” says Kavitha Emmanuel, the founder-director of Women of Worth, the Chennai-based NGO behind the “Dark is Beautiful” campaign. “Why can’t brands come up with products for all skin shades? Or promote healthy, glowing skin instead of fairness?

4. Most skin bleaching companies are run by Whites not surprisingly

Colors are.

There is no right and wrong color

Whites tan for recreational purposes, and and do not discriminate against each other based on skin tone. Nonwhites bleach to conform to racism.

The average White person discovers early on that being Black is not where is at. Being white is better. Its not very profitable to being Black when you can have a choice of being White. There’s more profits attached to being White than it is to being Black. That alone is a great incentive to remain White.

Nonwhites learn this as well, and the only reason why Nonwhites bleach is to try and shield themselves from racism.

It is wrong to play against peoples emotions and cause them to question who they are. You look like who you are supposed to look like

Brazil’s forward Neymar is pictured before the London 2012 Olympic men’s football semi final match between Brazil and South Korea at Old Trafford in Manchester, north-west England, on August 7, 2012. AFP PHOTO/PAUL ELLIS (Photo credit should read PAUL ELLIS/AFP/GettyImages)

What is the conclusion – “Make it worth our while to be black and we’ll happily be black.”